EU regulators unimpressed by genetically modified crop study

In late September, the University of Caen's Gilles-Eric Séralini released a paper that claimed to show an increased incidence of tumors in rats fed either an herbicide or corn engineered to resist the herbicide. At the time, he used an unusual agreement to prevent outside experts from commenting on his work. Once they saw it, the study was generally panned.

Now, both the European Food Safety Authority and Germany’s Federal Institute for Risk Assessment have weighed in on the matter, and both find the study inadequate. Both cite the use of tumor-prone rats in a long-term study that focused on tumor incidence, and the insufficient size of the experimental and control groups. The EU group also highlights the lack of standard statistical approaches to analyzing the results. The Germans aren't convinced by the authors' explanation for the fact that the supposed toxins showed no dose effect—or increased susceptibility to tumors with increased GMO-consumption—concluding "this hypothesis is not sufficiently supported by the data presented."

They're unlikely to find out whether Séralini's data, presented or otherwise, support it. That's because Séralini is refusing to release any of his original data until those organizations release all their data on their original approval of the crop.

But that doesn't mean Séralini is remaining silent about the work. The release of the paper was apparently coordinated with the release of a book, film, and TV documentary, all focused on the experiments in question. The coordinated media blitz was considered so important that, as we reported earlier, journalists had to sign a non-disclosure agreement in order to see it in advance of its release. According to Nature News, which has now seen a copy of the agreement, Séralini wanted anyone who broke it to cough up the full cost of the study—several million Euros.

86 Reader Comments

The conspiracy theorist in me must ask whether the anti-GMO crowd that is behaving badly are just individuals whom have compromised their ethics and scientific rigor in order to fight what can reasonably be described as the patenting and burgeoning conglomerate control of base foodstock; Or as an alternative, if there is some organizing force with some financial interest in keeping Monsanto GMO down.

What a clusterfuck... I think we seriously need credible studies on the potential dangers of GMO, but this doesn't seem to be it.... In fact, it may do more harm than good by making regulators believe everyone in the anti-GMO crowd is a mindless anti-multinationals tree-hugger...

As for the refusal to release data unless the same happens with the original authorization data - I thought such data was already public. Is this not the case?

What a clusterfuck... I think we seriously need credible studies on the potential dangers of GMO, but this doesn't seem to be it....

More? What's wrong with the existing, extensive body of knowledge?

"The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies. (PDF)

Of course, I'm not saying stop researching the stuff. But there have been extensive studies on their dangers - far more than on the dangers of traditional and organic food - and conclusions have almost universally been that GMO is fine.

I was curious, I know when research is complete to get a paper published it needs to be peer reviewed and accepted (based on the validity of the experiment and analysis). Is there some sort of system in place to do such reviews beforehand, say have the researchers post their proposed experiments (in this case the types of rats they are planning on using and such) and have their peers critique it before wasting all that time and money ("Hey the rats you're using won't be accepted in tumor studies"). I mean I realize this should kind of be taken care of when they search for funding, but I feel things of this nature slip through far too often.

(I also realize that some people do these experiment knowing full well they won't be accepted by their peers and are just using them to spark controversy, say when being funded by the industry players in the field of their research, but like I said, just curious)

These people are like PETA and most other ideologues; ethics (and basic decency) are less than nothing next to the purity of their motives and the righteousness of The Cause. The point of this "study" was PR, it doesn't matter if it get debunked later (just look at the anti-vaccination twits).

That bit about releasing the original approval data is weird though. I thought such information was always public. Is there any proof any unreleased data actually exists, or is it just a case of "the data doesn't show what I know must be true, so they must have covered it up"? Cause if they approved it but didn't reveal why that's pretty bad.

Have you confirmed this information? Because the lawyer associated with the study was just on french national radio explaining that they offered their raw data to official government bodies or research groups but none even asked to see it before commenting.

While some part of the study seems inadequate it did use the same rules applied to any study on the subject.So we are really all thinking that all current information on the subject has been obtained through inadequate means.Only two studies on the subject have been done, this one and another in Austria that hasn't been published, the problem being that this "small" one had already a cost of over 3 millions euros, so why haven't governments forked money for a larger and wholly study on the subject (the data would surely be useful) instead of asking why this independent group hasn't pushed the study to 3 to 4 times the size (and cost)?

Right now only one government has decided to produce a new study on the subject... Russia.

Sounds like someone with either an axe to grind, or is looking to get some kind of payoff.

If he really cared, he'd be trumpeting the data anywhere he could.

Instead, he's holding his data and trying to shift the blame to someone else. Sounds more like these quacks that come up with free-energy devices than a scientist.

If he yells loud enough, long enough people will start to believe him. Anyone that defends GMO crops will be deemed to have a vested interest or something. It's a tactic that works. If he can pull that off, maybe he can put the screws to companies like Monsanta: money for testing "fixed" crops.

Have you confirmed this information? Because the lawyer associated with the study was just on french national radio explaining that they offered their raw data to official government bodies or research groups but none even asked to see it before commenting.

From a certain point of view, they did. They offered the experimental data _if_ the government forked over something.

It's a technically true but deceptive statement.

Quote:

While some part of the study seems inadequate it did use the same rules applied to any study on the subject.So we are really all thinking that all current information on the subject has been obtained through inadequate means.

What rule allows you to use tumor-prone test animals, then comment on the unusual number of tumors?

Quote:

Only two studies on the subject have been done, this one and another in Austria that hasn't been published, the problem being that this "small" one had already a cost of over 3 millions euros, so why haven't governments forked money for a larger and wholly study on the subject (the data would surely be useful) instead of asking why this independent group hasn't pushed the study to 3 to 4 times the size (and cost)?

There have been more tests of GMO crops than I care to try and remember. Where are you getting this "only two" number?

Quote:

ight now only one government has decided to produce a new study on the subject... Russia.

And when Russia finds out, like every other GMO test so far, that GMO crops are perfectly safe?

While some part of the study seems inadequate it did use the same rules applied to any study on the subject.So we are really all thinking that all current information on the subject has been obtained through inadequate means.

So, this isn't accurate, and i've seen it repeated several times. Yes, other studies were done with smaller numbers of mice. But they were short-term toxicology studies. This was a long-term cancer study. The difference means that the approaches that are adequate for one type of study won't be in the second. So, no, it's not a matter of all studies being equally inadequate.

Torrijos wrote:

Only two studies on the subject have been done

Someone just above linked to a summary of a large collection of additional studies. There are not only two.

Someone just above linked to a summary of a large collection of additional studies. There are not only two.

It's worth noting that while I cited an analysis of 130 studies above, those were studies on GM food in general and not specifically this particular corn. My personal feeling is that the systems in place for ensuring GM food is safe for people are more than adequate, and tracking down a good study for every single objection raised is an unwinnable game of whack-a-mole. The issue of GM food is extraordinarily complex (try reading the Wikipedia page on it), which makes it easy for people with an agenda to misrepresent risks, statistics, and uncertainties. And it's made worse because GM food is so often associated with Monsanto, whose corporate practices have enraged a lot of people.

I wish they would specify that it's the type of Genetic Engineering that resists poisons or produces poisons. OF COURSE those are going to be bad for humans!

Completely false thinking there. The fact that you can safely chow down on chocolate all day and your dog cannot is more than enough to invalidate this kind of logic. But it's important that people get accurate information when the public needs to make decisions on this kind of scale. So to expand on it a bit, the herbicide-resistant crops are not themselves producing poison and so they have no mechanism to poison people eating them compared to other strains. The type of crop that actually produces a pesticide, Bt corn, takes a gene from soil bacteria that is already used as a biological form of pest control (especially among "organic" growers because it doesn't affect most beneficial insects or other wildlife). The protein it produces is relatively specific compared to something like rat poison, affecting only a few types of insects and is not at all effective on your very different mammalian gut. It doesn't even work in all insects, but we know it works against several types of moth larva that act as a major pest of maize, cotton, and other crops. Some varieties of it are also effective against mosquito larva, so it's helpful in the fight against malaria. So no, crops that are engineered to resist poisons or produce certain proteins are not automatically dangerous or harmful to us.

*edit*

kot_matroskin wrote:

There has not been a single independent study on this, let alone over a period of time (FDA and megacorp studies not counting, just google around about those 2 being in bed plenty of evidence out there).

Yes, it's easy to say there's been no studies when you can dismiss every study that's been done with the mere allegation of conspiracies. But real conflicts of interest don't work that way.

Is it just me or is everyone missing the big blatant elephant in the room here:

This researcher asks that you believe his conclusions, and refuses to release his data.These organizations demand that you obey their laws, and refuse to release their data.

If you want to say withholding experimental data on public health issues is a dick-move... you can, and you'd be right, but understand that it applies equally to these organisations who directly guide the laws food-suppliers have to abide by, and the potential for abuse is far greater by these groups. If they have nothing to hide, where is their data?

Again, both sides are effectively asking for your trust by withholding the data,but one side is demanding your compliance... which deserves more scrutiny?

Labeling GMO food is an absolutely ridiculous idea. For starters not all GMO food is the same and to make an 'informed' decision one would have to have an understanding of the modifications to the genes. There is no known vector for most GMOs to cause alarm. Its not like transfats where there is a clear understanding of what is wrong with it and how it harms our bodies.

BUT you say why not let the consumer make a choice. Because people scare easily and they don't understand the issues with their food just like labeling radiation in cell phones or posting warnings on vaccination there comes a point where labeling causes worse decisions for consumers than not and if you want to let consumers make choices at the risk level of GMOs they would spend an hour reading every package. Do you really want to read about the issues with eating beets because that is what you invite.

That said if a corporation wants to boast that they don't use GMO's that's perfectly fine and quite in line with how are system works now. Of course the way corps spin these things it won't always be true.

If you want to say withholding experimental data on public health issues is a dick-move... you can, and you'd be right, but understand that it applies equally to these organisations who directly guide the laws food-suppliers have to abide by, and the potential for abuse is far greater by these groups. If they have nothing to hide, where is their data?

Again, both sides are effectively asking for your trust by withholding the data,but one side is demanding your compliance... which deserves more scrutiny?

You don't fight the good fight by using the same tactics you criticize the other side for using, especially in science. If the researchers really thought they had a solid experiment and sound conclusions they would publish their data to remove all doubt and make the regulators look bad by comparison. As far as I know there's no proprietary data or agreements from other parties tying their hands (as is often the case with these patented GMOs). The argument that the release of data from regulators is insufficient should be made on its own merits and not by keeping everyone from scrutinizing yours; that doesn't even make for good showmanship, and it's completely toxic to scholarly credibility. It removes the strength of your appeal to science by destroying your claims to scientific validity, especially when your conclusions have been challenged as thoroughly as this group's. That's not even counting their demonstrable financial investment in anti-GMO propaganda and other conflicts of interests, or their absurd demands of the press (such as threatening NDA-breakers with millions of dollars in reparation and keeping journalists from consulting other experts). You can say that this all applies to the GMO companies and regulators and that this is the real issue if you like, but a huge and apparently fraudulent publicity stunt masquerading as science is absolutely not justified here. Instead of providing a well-constructed argument against premature GMO use and for reforms in reuglation, all this "study" has done is undermine science itself for the sake of free advertising and notoriety. That sabotages the policy debate instead of elevating it. It's absolutely counter-productive.

Is it just me or is everyone missing the big blatant elephant in the room here:

This researcher asks that you believe his conclusions, and refuses to release his data.These organizations demand that you obey their laws, and refuse to release their data.

If you want to say withholding experimental data on public health issues is a dick-move... you can, and you'd be right, but understand that it applies equally to these organisations who directly guide the laws food-suppliers have to abide by, and the potential for abuse is far greater by these groups. If they have nothing to hide, where is their data?

Again, both sides are effectively asking for your trust by withholding the data,but one side is demanding your compliance... which deserves more scrutiny?

Here's the thing, asking the government to release the data is asking the WRONG PEOPLE. The government didn't ITSELF make the data, it REVIEED the data, from over 150 different studies, each of which released their data to limited peer review, and to the government, the data sets were validated and science proven valid, and the reults were published, but the government does NOT wend up owning withs to the data at the ned of that process, and can't actually release it, al it can do it cite it;s sources and direct you to speak to them.

So, essentialyl, what this organization is asking is for all the data from 150 different other privately funded studies to be released to them and the public, with no compensation to the bodias that did those studies and without reguard to all the people whio DID pay for and review the results, and they refuse to release theirs until both that is done, AND they get paid for their dtat (for a price equal to the sum of the total cost of their research if someone looks at it and then publishes information further denouncing the study).

that's not science, that an organization seeking money and witholding data on the premise that if you talk bad about it you have to pay them, while concurrently forcing other scientific firms to release without compensation (or with a MASSIEV bill the government has tou cough up to publicise it likely can't afford).

But they were short-term toxicology studies. This was a long-term cancer study.

Absolutely not. I agree that as a long term study it should have used a larger population of mice, but this was still a toxicology study published in a toxicology journal, not a cancer study. They looked at tumors, not cancers, and did not perform the usual full set of in-depth analysis of the cancers because that's not what they were studying at all.

Labeling GMO food is an absolutely ridiculous idea. For starters not all GMO food is the same and to make an 'informed' decision one would have to have an understanding of the modifications to the genes. There is no known vector for most GMOs to cause alarm. Its not like transfats where there is a clear understanding of what is wrong with it and how it harms our bodies.

In any healthy Republic, the political class is supposed to be the servant of the people. Their employment is supposed to be predicated on their willingness to hear and understand the wishes of their constituency. If a bill or policy arises that threatens the civil liberties or financial safety of the people, and they call for a representative to oppose it, that is exactly what he is supposed to do. If he does otherwise, and supports a damaging or unconstitutional bill while fully aware of massive voter resistance, it means he is not in fear for his job, which means his job has not necessarily been secured by our votes, which means he is likely working for somebody else; somebody who will benefit from the bill in question.

Two perfect examples would be the passage of the banker bailout bills, and the indefinite detention provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act. Both were vehemently opposed by a majority of Americans on both sides of the so called political “aisle”, and yet, they were given a majority support by our representatives in government. This reveals an ulterior motivation within our government that is, to put it bluntly, treasonous. If they voted for a liberty killing bill, then cross them off your roster of principled leaders and add them to your list of enemies…

I mean they looked at tumors as in a toxicology study. As far as I have read, real cancer studies require more animals, many detailed tests and different protocols. This study on GMOs was presented as a toxicology study, not a cancer study where you would differentiate between benign or malign cancers, types of cancers, etc. The name of the paper starts as "Long term toxicity", the word "cancer" is not mentioned a single time in the whole paper, except in the references at the end of the paper. It is a toxicology study, not a cancer study. It's a bad enough study that we don't need to make it pass for what it's not.

Labeling GMO food is an absolutely ridiculous idea. For starters not all GMO food is the same and to make an 'informed' decision one would have to have an understanding of the modifications to the genes. There is no known vector for most GMOs to cause alarm. Its not like transfats where there is a clear understanding of what is wrong with it and how it harms our bodies.

BUT you say why not let the consumer make a choice. Because people scare easily and they don't understand the issues with their food just like labeling radiation in cell phones or posting warnings on vaccination there comes a point where labeling causes worse decisions for consumers than not and if you want to let consumers make choices at the risk level of GMOs they would spend an hour reading every package. Do you really want to read about the issues with eating beets because that is what you invite.

That said if a corporation wants to boast that they don't use GMO's that's perfectly fine and quite in line with how are system works now. Of course the way corps spin these things it won't always be true.

Actually, I would not mind if GMO foods were labeled, provided they all were. The idea that some types of GMO are okay, but others are not, is silly. Of course, most of the organic crowd would be shocked to learn how many of their precious "organic" foods was the result of some pretty major genetic modification. I cannot think of a single food crop in the first world that has not been created by genetic modification. It is just that some of those modifications were made so long ago that most people do not realize that the crop has been significantly genetically modified. Broccoli, lima beans, anything "seedless", ALL forms of corn, etc.

Labeling GMO food is an absolutely ridiculous idea. For starters not all GMO food is the same and to make an 'informed' decision one would have to have an understanding of the modifications to the genes. There is no known vector for most GMOs to cause alarm. Its not like transfats where there is a clear understanding of what is wrong with it and how it harms our bodies.

BUT you say why not let the consumer make a choice. Because people scare easily and they don't understand the issues with their food just like labeling radiation in cell phones or posting warnings on vaccination there comes a point where labeling causes worse decisions for consumers than not and if you want to let consumers make choices at the risk level of GMOs they would spend an hour reading every package. Do you really want to read about the issues with eating beets because that is what you invite.

That said if a corporation wants to boast that they don't use GMO's that's perfectly fine and quite in line with how are system works now. Of course the way corps spin these things it won't always be true.

Actually, I would not mind if GMO foods were labeled, provided they all were. The idea that some types of GMO are okay, but others are not, is silly. Of course, most of the organic crowd would be shocked to learn how many of their precious "organic" foods was the result of some pretty major genetic modification. I cannot think of a single food crop in the first world that has not been created by genetic modification. It is just that some of those modifications were made so long ago that most people do not realize that the crop has been significantly genetically modified. Broccoli, lima beans, anything "seedless", ALL forms of corn, etc.

I've made this point before when someone has tried to educate me on the 'dangers' of GMO food. My usual response "Can you show me a non-GMO food?"

I've made this point before when someone has tried to educate me on the 'dangers' of GMO food. My usual response "Can you show me a non-GMO food?"

The ones grown in your garden from proper non-gmo seed pool. There is also stuff out there if you are willing to look, but to each his own, as long as choice exists, sadly biotechs are doing their best brainwashing the crowd into compliance and to eliminate choice.

I've made this point before when someone has tried to educate me on the 'dangers' of GMO food. My usual response "Can you show me a non-GMO food?"

The ones grown in your garden from proper non-gmo seed pool. There is stuff out there if you are willing to look, but to each his own

The stuff most people grow is actually from lines that have been modified in a much less controlled way than gene-insertion GMOs. Usually they're the product of a shotgun approach where radiation or chemical mutagens drives an increased rate of random mutation in the plants' genes and from these are selected specimens with desirable qualities.

I've made this point before when someone has tried to educate me on the 'dangers' of GMO food. My usual response "Can you show me a non-GMO food?"

The ones grown in your garden from proper non-gmo seed pool. There is stuff out there if you are willing to look, but to each his own

What crop specifically? I ask because 'non-GMO seeds' are still a product of centuries of genetic manipulation via selection, crossbreeding and other historical techniques that are potentially far more dangerous and far less controlled than current GMO practices.

The GM and GMO names refer exclusively to the modern biotech science that introduces foreign genes into the genetic make-up of organisms, via a gene gun or other methods. It does not refer to the natural or artificial selection by humans of these organisms. What you refer to is artificial selection, not GMO. And even though, there's still lots of non-artificially selected food, like many wild fish caught from the ocean, wild blueberries in my supermarket, wild herbs or mushrooms, etc.

I've made this point before when someone has tried to educate me on the 'dangers' of GMO food. My usual response "Can you show me a non-GMO food?"

The ones grown in your garden from proper non-gmo seed pool. There is stuff out there if you are willing to look, but to each his own

What crop specifically? I ask because 'non-GMO seeds' are still a product of centuries of genetic manipulation via selection, crossbreeding and other historical techniques that are potentially far more dangerous and far less controlled than current GMO practices.

Centuries of genetic modifications? LOL. Do you even know what real food is supposed to taste like? You can thank biotechs for that.

Labeling GMO food is an absolutely ridiculous idea. For starters not all GMO food is the same and to make an 'informed' decision one would have to have an understanding of the modifications to the genes. There is no known vector for most GMOs to cause alarm. Its not like transfats where there is a clear understanding of what is wrong with it and how it harms our bodies.

BUT you say why not let the consumer make a choice. Because people scare easily and they don't understand the issues with their food just like labeling radiation in cell phones or posting warnings on vaccination there comes a point where labeling causes worse decisions for consumers than not and if you want to let consumers make choices at the risk level of GMOs they would spend an hour reading every package. Do you really want to read about the issues with eating beets because that is what you invite.

That said if a corporation wants to boast that they don't use GMO's that's perfectly fine and quite in line with how are system works now. Of course the way corps spin these things it won't always be true.

Actually, I would not mind if GMO foods were labeled, provided they all were. The idea that some types of GMO are okay, but others are not, is silly. Of course, most of the organic crowd would be shocked to learn how many of their precious "organic" foods was the result of some pretty major genetic modification. I cannot think of a single food crop in the first world that has not been created by genetic modification. It is just that some of those modifications were made so long ago that most people do not realize that the crop has been significantly genetically modified. Broccoli, lima beans, anything "seedless", ALL forms of corn, etc.

I agree with what you said. My point is that just being GMO does not make it harmful. If I were to modify a plant to create a compound that we change into cyanide overtime that would be harmful but not because its GMO but because it was designed that way. Maybe I wasn't clear on that point.

My second point is that many foods contain things that are harmful to you in high enough dosages but not harmful in low dosages. If you want to label GMOs because of there potential dangers you will have to have a laundry lists of warnings on many foods we consider healthy(because they are).

Most of produce is cultivated over the years to be completely different from the original crop. Especially corn and I believe even chi-chi-chia. Ancient mexico was a literal corn-i-copia of this type of cross breeding. And Grapefruit was created in the last century and contains some interesting alkaloids. It always amazes me how people consider random genetic mutation or crossbreeding safe(it can produce something poisonous) but are afraid of controlled genetic alterations.

I suspect this has a lot to do with the earlier part of the 20th century when the most important thing was preserving food and preventing crop blights. Stuff like Trans fats and DDT and a couple of cancerous additives made people more cautious about the food...of course this is easy when we can by any food we want now. People also forget we used to drink mercury(well we still do) and drink irradiated water. We used to put our feet in x-ray machines to make sure our shoes fit right and line our brakes with asbestos. Mostly we didn't know better. We didn't have the understanding of the world that we do today of course we learned and through it all even with all of that "guinea pig" era we still lived longer than the previous generation. Old problems were replaced with new problems.

As said forcing a label on GMO's is a bad idea. People freak out easily...there are still people freaking out about fluoride in the water and nutrasweet. But I also feel like that its perfectly reasonable for a competitive brand to advertise that they were not GMO.

The real issues of GMOs comes from patentability and control of a food source but than again the original crops will still be available and patents run out overtime. The second issue is the misuse of GMOs that reduce there effectiveness because of lazy farmers.

The GM and GMO names refer exclusively to the modern biotech science that introduces foreign genes into the genetic make-up of organisms, via a gene gun or other methods. It does not refer to the natural or artificial selection by humans of these organisms. What you refer to is artificial selection, not GMO. And even though, there's still lots of non-artificially selected food, like many wild fish caught from the ocean, wild blueberries in my supermarket, wild herbs or mushrooms, etc.

Yes that was exactly my thoughts. I try to avoid aritificail ingredients as much as possible (or anything that has items that require chem degree to know. A lot of organics out there are not truly natural, but thankfully i still remember what natural food tastes like and i know specific products (from both organic and conventional categories) that i can choose. After numerous times where corporations and govenrments (tylenol fiasco, bank bailouts, patriot act among many many many others) have shown that they only have their interest in mind, i am skeptical to anything they spit out to the masses.Living in the USSR for half of my life and seeing USSA being formed today makes me even more skeptic.